How long does film have?

How long does film have?

  • Film? Film is already dead! Long live digital.

    Votes: 5 1.4%

  • A few more years.

    Votes: 38 10.8%

  • A few more decades.

    Votes: 123 35.0%

  • Film will be around forever!

    Votes: 185 52.7%
  • Total voters
    351
climbing_vine said:
Please, name one. I asked for this a number of times, and nobody has.
Click to expand...

Here are some relevant pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drum_memory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_tape_data_storage

I didn't investigate these lists thouroughly, but I'm guessing that at least one of these devices would require an engineering effort in order to access the data on them.

And one thing that everyone is forgetting is whether or not a hard disk or a CDROM is itself archival. That is, even if the technology exists to read it, will the data still have the integrity to be readable.
 
This story grows tiresome...

I have to pick up my negatives in a few minutes, where the Walgreens is very, very busy printing and developing. 50% of all print jobs there are film as of this date.

2 years ago a respected member of this forum predicted C41 would not be easily available by January 2008. This particular Walgreens had not yet been built, and now has added yet another of the many options within 8 miles of my rural home.

Of course, they don't carry or develop stuff like Efke 25, a bunch of which just landed on my doorstep.

I'll buy the "film is dead" argument when I can't buy the film.
 
antiquark said:
Here are some relevant pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drum_memory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_tape_data_storage

I didn't investigate these lists thouroughly, but I'm guessing that at least one of these devices would require an engineering effort in order to access the data on them.

And one thing that everyone is forgetting is whether or not a hard disk or a CDROM is itself archival. That is, even if the technology exists to read it, will the data still have the integrity to be readable.
Click to expand...

And I'll say once again, these are both irrelevant as they have nothing to do with pervasive consumer computers. It was a different market that has nothing to do with what we're talking about (and in the instance of magnetic tape, it's easy to read--they're still in wide use).

And the thing that everyone else is forgetting is that the integrity question applies just as much to all the film and negatives that people have sitting around. Even more so now that people are putting so many images online, where they're subject to redundancy, the wayback machine, etc, etc, etc. Film does not win that competition. Not even close.
 
Yesterday i went to a local orthodox church and told them Jesus is dead.
They did not seem to care.
Those poor fellows.

I am a worshipper of Queen Beatrix. I wonder though how long she still has.
 
antiquark said:
Here are some relevant pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drum_memory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_tape_data_storage

I didn't investigate these lists thouroughly, but I'm guessing that at least one of these devices would require an engineering effort in order to access the data on them.

And one thing that everyone is forgetting is whether or not a hard disk or a CDROM is itself archival. That is, even if the technology exists to read it, will the data still have the integrity to be readable.
Click to expand...

With magnetic tape it was common practice to respool them every three month and copy them once a year, magnetic tape was known to be somewhat delicate.

Drum memory was extremly expensive and thus rare, and we're talking a couple of megabytes at best with drum memory. There are probably printouts of the data stored on the drums.

CD-Roms, my Brothers in Arms CD works well, better than vinyl I have from the 80s. I still have a couple Kodak CD-Rs from 93 to 95 stored in folders which are fine today. But I keep them for testing only, they have long been copied to other media.

Have you heard about the missing Dr. Who episodes? They cleaned out the film spools to make room for new ones.

It is easy to copy digital media witout any loss, if you follow standard procedure you're fine.
 
climbing_vine said:
And I'll say once again, these are both irrelevant as they have nothing to do with pervasive consumer computers.
Click to expand...
Since your definition of "pervasive storage" is anything that was in use 10 years ago and is still in use, then of course it's impossible to find "pervasive storage" that was in use 10 years ago but is no longer in use. It's a logical contradiction.

I agree with aad, this argument is getting tedious.
 
Getting back to the topic at hand: The long-term trend is against film. Just look at Kodak's quarterly results, posted by me in this thread earlier. I don't care how many people are in line at your Walgreens to develop film. That's a single datapoint anecdote. If film is to be anything other than an eccentric hobbyist past-time in the future, someone will have to come up with an argument stating why and when the drastic contraction of the film market as evidenced by the results reported by manufacturers will cease or stabilize. Absent such an argument, you're just playing around, which is Ok, too.

/T
 
Pherdinand said:
Yesterday i went to a local orthodox church and told them Jesus is dead.
They did not seem to care.
Those poor fellows.

I am a worshipper of Queen Beatrix. I wonder though how long she still has.
Click to expand...

Perdinand, you are on a roll today!:D
 
I followed Fotoimpex film manufacture project on their forum. They set up the former Agfa Lab equipment for emulsion testing and very small production runs in case another of their suppliers goes bust. They expect to produce at reasonable cost, i.E. not much more than expensive B/W film today.

So emulsion and coating is possible, but what is with the base? You need a fully fledged chemical plant to produce PE foil and it has to be made to very tight tolerances.

So as long as they make PE foils good enough for film, I think we'll have at least B/W film.
 
I remember the exact same kind of threads 10 years ago. They were just as pointless, had the same arguments, etc. etc. Some things never change.

/T
 
antiquark said:
Since your definition of "pervasive storage" is anything that was in use 10 years ago and is still in use, then of course it's impossible to find "pervasive storage" that was in use 10 years ago but is no longer in use. It's a logical contradiction.

I agree with aad, this argument is getting tedious.
Click to expand...

Oh, for chrissakes.

I haven't uttered the phrase "pervasive storage" once.

I said "pervasive" in the context of consumer markets.

If you don't want to find some common perception of reality and discuss from it, that's fine. Ignoring or misrepresenting all of what is presented to you is just tiresome. So be it! Have fun in your fantasy land where film and slides are there waiting to be discovered and used in perfection by everyone a millenia from now, and all digital media will disappear into a vortex in five years.

Just, seriously. Christ on a stick. :rolleyes:
 
Here is a far out notion:
Whilst adoption of digital imaging is growing rapidly and usage of film stagnating or declining, can we be sure that digital will take over film as the next imaging medium for photographs?
What if digital is just an interim imaging solution?
As it is camera phones are emerging as an alternative to point & shoot compacts, could another more advance/pervasive medium of storage evolve before digital media firmly establishes itself? Going out of a limb here... eg light waves?

Perhaps even film might survive longer than digital as an imaging medium.

Ok ok back to reality - I don't see a viable replacement for digital in the near future yet but I love film.
It is more fun & less work in front of the computer.
 
I figure film is good for another 30 years (which is how long I figure before I croak). As long as I'm alive I'll at least keep Ilford & kodak in the the film business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom